Many of us have spent the last five years hoping beyond hope that Google Fiber would be deployed on our home turf. Fiber has been expanding little by little, but the costs are still astronomical. Alphabet CEO Larry Page has reportedly gotten fed up with Google Fiber burning through cash. He's demanded Fiber chief Craig Barratt cut his staff to 500 from 1,000 and reduce the cost of acquiring new customers to one-tenth of current levels.

Google was restructured into Alphabet a year ago, and that included spinning some Google divisions off into their own Alphabet companies. One of those new entities was Google Fiber, which is now known as Access internally. Being on its own has focused more attention on how much it costs to run Fiber. Google originally wanted to sign up five million subscribers in five years, but as of 2014, it only had 200,000. It costs billions to deploy the fiber lines in cities, which is why there are only seven active Fiber markets so far. Even that might have been too fast. Former Fiber employees claim that every rollout was frantic because there wasn't time to learn from the last deployment.

It has been reported that Alphabet wants to move Fiber (or Access) to wireless technology that is much cheaper and faster to deploy. This might rely upon microwave technology, which has shown promise for high-speed connections. That might help get customer acquisition cost down where Page wants, but cutting Fiber's staff could have a lasting negative impact.

Comments

It's a bad state of affairs when Google gets upset at a moonshot for being too expensive D:

Chris

I've never been educated on the logistics of network infrastructure deployment but couldn't they get some funding from the government?

King_Android

They potentially could if the city was interested in using some of the fiber lines for its own "personal" use but thats an additional cost where most Govt entities are slashing their budget so if the city is looking to bring next gen tech into the city then I can see certain city governments jumping on board to pay for such luxuries. But those are the cities that's constantly looking to grow, expand. Again Im sure it could happen. But I think the wifi route would be much more beneficial as it will allow for more than just who Google originally planned for GFiber to serve. Thus making the adoption much easier and cost effective if the customer decides after a few months that they no longer want GFiber service.

Chris

Fair enough. Plus, I could see maintenance and upgrades having a lot less overhead.

更木 剣八 ® ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

The biggest issue is internet providers trying to pass laws to stop municipal fiber and Google from expanding. I can't remember what state. One of them offered Google the chance to deploy fiber lines and they thought about building thier own structure. ATT etc stepped in saying they have exclusive rights to it. The problem here is they have no desire to increase speeds just keep things at bare minimum, while charging more.

Soraya Xel

That's much of what Google was counting on. While companies like AT&T and Comcast invest millions in building their networks, Google has hoping to collect on government handouts and backroom deals to "compete" with other networks without actually incurring any of the cost or the risk.

Google wants to be like sports stadiums: Where taxpayers pay for the stadium, and then the sports team gets to charge taxpayers to come visit it.

Whoever at Google thought that they could completely upend ISPs without a second thought was crazy. Fiber to the home is a massive undertaking. I'm sure that people at Google did realize that to some extent, but they should have realized earlier on that the cost was higher than was sustainable.

But still, I wanted it to come to my area, too! Hopefully efforts like this will continue enough that we can finally get real, honest-to-God competition in the ISP industry again. :crosses fingers:

blindexecutioner

It's too bad the laws of the cities are one of the largest road blocks. They are designed to keep the "almost" monopolistic cable companies as the sole provider of internet.

It's not over. What they started has had a rippling effect in the industry.

更木 剣八 ® ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

Haven't you noticed that since they started adding 1GB down. Now multiple providers have been increasing their download speeds? Not only that. Some places have 2GB/1GB and have upgraded to 300-500 down. What they started had a ripple effect. I remember reading articles in 2012 where Comcast would say anything above 30 down was not needed. (To justify not upgrading).

Switching to wireless would still get people gigabit speeds using high-frequency spectrum, including millimetre waves. If anything, it would scare Verizon, ATT, Comcast etc into increasing speeds since now Google can by pass several laws laid down by them to stop thier roll out.

I think switching to wireless only opens it up for google fi. and an even bigger issue for the wireless monopolies. hence the Tmobile uncarrier blitz for years.

更木 剣八 ® ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

Yep. Good point !!! Never thought of Fi/Wireless.

Back to fiber. Look what happened when fiber was deployed in one of the states. ATT argued that it wasn't needed, takes to long, etc ,etc, etc. Google rolled 1gb down and magically within 2 months ATT gave them 1GB down (at a higher price but reduced if you get a packaged deal, phone, net, cable etc) This proves they have no interest in moving speeds forward, unless forced.

Yeah, in areas where Google Fiber was going. In most areas, there hasn't been any gigabit push.

Drew M

This is how I interpreted it too. They probably aren't abandoning broadband, just shifting from fiber to wireless.

james fuston

This shouldn't be a surprise by now. There's plenty of documentation on how Google actively encourages employees killing products or projects if there are real obstacles to success. It isn't a bad policy to have.

YaKillaCJ

The issue is simple. Deploy in large markets first where U can actually get a million customers. I looked at the list of markets and thought to myself how I never heard of these places. Deploy in South Florida, New York, New Jersey, California, Texas. U kno where population and an actual customer base exist.

No, it's speed of light, and is line of site opposed to the routing that wired connections need to go, so technically it can be ever so slightly faster. Consumer wireless routers on the other hand are a whole other ball game.

Blake

Line of sight microwave transmission. Individual buildings have their own internal wiring, but then connect over wireless rather than fiber/coax. Some buildings are apparently hard wired in as sort of a base node but most of the buildings downtown here aren't and I know mine is one of those. You can see the attached as proof of sorts. This was last week over wi-fi even, wired is a bit faster and lower ping. Sorry it's not fresh numbers but I'm at work right this minute. http://www.speedtest.net/result/5560105301.png

OligarchyAmbulance

I have "regular" Wave, and can't wait to get Wave G. As far as ISPs are concerned, they've been wonderful, and very well priced. I think ultimately something like that makes the most sense, because Wireless is just so much easier and cheaper to deploy, especially for a company like Google who doesn't have an existing infrastructure. A combination of wired and wireless gives them the best of both worlds.

Blake

If I recall from talking to the techs back when it was CondoInternet.net the setup costs were rather high per building but still significantly cheaper than fiber. The issue for them, and for Google even, is how to do wireless to single family units and still keep it cost effective and maintain line of sight (there's not worry of trees or the like in a downtown area).

Steven Hanson

So what can the government hide behind now? If one of the most profitable and well established companies in the world can't establish itself in a market then there are inherent barriers besides "true" cost at play here. But of course we know they'll hide behind their brib.... I mean contributions and say whatever they want and sell us up the creek.

PerhapsNever

Frivolous lawsuits brought by both local governments and large monopolies. Reduced access to equipment (poles and such) that is needed to actually provide the service.

Sir_Brizz

I wonder what number of homes are "Fiber" ready out of the cities they are in? Honestly they just need to work out a decent system so that they can have a city approach them about working together to build a fiber system and have the city help shoulder the burden of getting things hooked up. It's a benefit to their residents to not have Comcast or AT&T as the sole internet provider and the service can be provided through Google instead of the municipality to skirt any states that have retarded laws about such things.

Honestly there are many areas where they could undercut Comcast enough and it's the only option available that 50%+ of the residents would likely buy their service. AND be wiling to help shoulder the cost of deployment.

The problem they have right now is that they don't have enough penetration. If they can get cheap and fast wireless deployed and that helps them expand Fiber that's great but I want cheap fiber already. It's 2016 ffs.

emailrob

At last they realize that building fibre is very hard, complicated, expensive, full of red tape, competitors, and perhaps not the reward they were really hoping for.

更木 剣八 ® ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

The biggest issue is the US does not allow line sharing which competitors use to stop anyone coming in. They stopped Google, in, I think NC, because they have exclusive rights to provided internet and forced the local municipality to not build thier own. Now everyone's tangled in frivolous lawsuits. Yet ATT and company have no issues keeping speeds low and prices high.

PerhapsNever

I think that was Nashville actually. Charlotte has fiber (kind of), it's still being rolled out to parts of the city.

更木 剣八 ® ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

Maybe, you're right or Tennessee. One of my friends lives there and they mentioned something similar (She works for ATT)

PerhapsNever

Nashville is in Tennessee. :)

更木 剣八 ® ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

Thanks. Not from that area. I'm in the west coast lol

PerhapsNever

No worries. I deal with a lot of people from overseas so I'm use to it. :)

emailrob

Yes, so fiber often cannot be shared (i.e. the existing resident has it contractually tied to the city, or their rental prices are exorbitant) in the conduit. If you have to lay NEW cable, well man that is expensive.

abdul94

wasnt this whole alphabet thing about giving google space? why is alphabet encroaching into that now?

They're not. As the article clearly states, Fiber is NOT part of Google, despite its name.

mike dunham

This makes me wonder if this is why I do not have fiber to my house yet. They have already brought it into the neighborhood but have been dragging their feet since. I would prefer the fiber to the house like I had in my previous house versus the wifi connection.

Slaghead

I was wondering why adoption rates were so low but this may be the cause? Seems like 400k subscribers from 7 markets is really low.

Mike in KC

Rollout is extremely slow, even when it does reach a new city. They do it neighborhood by neighborhood.

Bewear

But the actual good thing is it being fiber... it would lose all its glory if it became wireless.

PerhapsNever

Actually, it wouldn't. There are wireless technologies that can (and do) deliver gigabit speeds. Wave-G (https://gowaveg.com/) is one such ISP that uses these technologies.

JD

And what's the latency?

PerhapsNever

Most people seem to report 2-3 second ping times. I don't have the service first-hand. I've just been researching it recently.

Brayjr

Second or millisecond?

PerhapsNever

Duh. Sorry. 2-3 MS. Not seconds. LMAO (duh).

Bewear

Interesting...
I suspect my country will never see such technologies.

Bruce Wayne

With wireless, you will have degradation in the last mile.

Timothy Butterworth

Another mistake by Page. Investing in a long term return while partnering with home builders to bundle Fibre with a full set of devices is a better long term approach.

Also expanding to provide home security Monitoring as a service as part of smart home would leverage a better return on investment.

PerhapsNever

But that does nothing to offset the costs of getting the fiber service implemented in the first place. That's the real issue. It's easy to get subscribers if you can get into a market to offer said service.

bozzykid

With new wireless technology offering gigabit speeds or more, it is starting to become apparent that wireless is the future. Plus, it lets them deploy it much faster and cheaper.

JD

And so it begins(or well continues). Google no longer a start up friend of the online world, now evolving in to another soulless and heartless (some would argue brainless) Multi-national.
Either Die a hero or live long enough to turn in to a villain.

No...
There's a stranger in my bed
There's a pounding in my head
Glitter all over the room
Pink flamingos in the pool
I smell like a minibar
DJ's passed out in the yard
Barbies on the barbecue
Is this a hickey or a bruise?

tmartin

Considering a move to Fi. This is the kind of thing that will make me hesitate. Though, I know the big difference is that with Fi, they don't own/build the infrastructure. So I'm probably safe but it still makes me hesitate.

Less employees means "more efficient" according to Apple fans, and that press release a few years ago that spun them better than Nokia, despite far fewer sales and failing to ever beat Symbian in its lifetime.

JG

I wonder why subscriber numbers are so low... I can understand the TV package not having that many people sign up for it. After all, with 1,000Mbps cord-cutters really won't need to have to worry about buffering from Netflix or Hulu or wherever, even if multiple people in the house are trying to stream in uHD at the same time...

But I'm surprised the internet adoption is so low. The last time I checked, in Kansas City, Time Warner was offering 50Mbps for $65 or for just $5 more you could bump your speeds up 20 times faster with Google Fiber's 1,000Mbps... Sure, the $5 difference will add up, eventually... But I'd be more than happy to sacrifice one Venti Skinny Caramel Macchiato, Extra Shot, Extra Hot, Extra Whip a month in order to keep the budget balanced if it means I can has super fast internetz.

Mike in KC

Probably because of how limited the rollout is & hard it is to sign up for. You have to follow the website and watch for your"fiber hood" to be selected for service. Then there's a few month's window while you wait and see if enough of your neighbors in your hood sign up.

Once qualified then they start construction. Maybe a year after that you might get the cable run to your house & FINALLY get installed.

Leonardo Baez

Maybe because 99.99% of internet users are more than ok with 50Mbps.
The other 0.01% (us) care about faster and better connections.
I have to deal with a 5Mbps connection, that in business hours runs at 1Mbps.

Third world problem

Blake

Obviously these guys know more than I about this but so many companies today are so focused on short term vs long term. Although, Google is one of the least guilty of that. It just seems odd to make such enormous cuts overnight. These concerns should've been addressed years ago.

I'm curious how they go about acquiring new customers...is it door to door, just advertising, etc? Haven't really read much about it but it seems crazy they have so few customers for such an awesome service.

Mike in KC

They've run a bunch of advertising here in KC. Billboards, TV ads, Fiber Spaces, which are like demo offices. For awhile they even had mobile units they'd park giving out info and swag (t-shirts, stickers, rabbit yard signs, etc...)

ConCal

Please Alphabet, let fiber run free. I'll click on a few more ads if it would help?

Back in July, 9to5Google had an article about the LinkNYC kiosks Google's SideWalk Labs was helping to set up in New York City. In the article, they mentioned the kiosks generating an estimated $60,000 in annual revenue from selling ads that would be split between Google and the city. Grated, $30,000 won't come close to covering the cost of deploying Fiber lines, but it's more than they're getting now.

I know from some limited experience with the San Diego Undergrounding committee, that when you bury your utility wires you need to set up access boxes every so often. Rather than using a big ugly box that just sits in the middle of the sidewalk taking up space, Google could install these kiosks. Google, electric, the incumbent phone, internet, & TV companies etc would be able to access their wires from these kiosks if the network needed repaired or upgraded. Plus, these boxes could blanket the entire Fiberhood in WiFi, feeding from the Fiber lines that run under it. Google could set up a tiered system, providing a limited couple Mbps connection for free, and then charging for faster speeds per day, week or month for tourists or those who, for whatever reason, opt not to get Fiber (*access to the high speed WiFi should be included in the Fiber package).

The kiosks could also help out Project Fi (which, IMHO, could fit in well in Access along with Fiber). Fi subscribers could be given access to the high speed WiFi tier along with Fiber subscribers. Fi subscribers who then spend most of their time inside of the Fiberhood could essentially have an unlimited talk, text & data plan for just $20 a month. That might encourage a few more people to sign up, increasing revenue.

If US laws are making it hard for Google Rollout.. I cordially invite you to the UK, where the laws do everything they can to not allow monopolies and invite multiple phone/internet providers. And they DO allow line sharing.

DrakeTungsten

Nice gummy rabbit.

Spinkick

Seems like lately, google has been half assing and giving up when things get tough.